Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations

	Thursday, August 25, 2005
12:00 PM	Planning & Development Committe Public Hearing Sign Up and Overflow Room	LOB 2D
1:00 PM	Planning & Development Committee Informational Forum on Eminent Domain	LOB 2E
2:30 PM	Planning & Development Committee Public Hearing on Eminent Domain	LOB 2E

The aforementioned August 25th hearing is to gain public input on the issue of Eminent Domain. It appears the following proposals will be the focus of the 2006 Legislative session, at which time a legally constituted Public Hearing will have to be held on any and all statutory changes. As I receive information, I will disseminate it to you. Susan Kniep

************

Planning and Development Committee

Proposed Eminent Domain Legislation

LCO 7. AN ACT LIMITING THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PUBLIC USES. (pdf)

LCO 14. AN ACT CONCERNING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY MUNICIPALITIES BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. (pdf)

LCO 15. AN ACT REQUIRING THE APPROVAL OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF A MUNICIPALITY FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN.  (pdf)

LCO 16. AN ACT CONCERNING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY MUNICIPALITIES BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.  (pdf)

LCO 17. AN ACT CONCERNING THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.  (pdf)

LCO 18. AN ACT CONCERNING THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.  (pdf)

LCO 19. AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROCESS FOR EMINENT DOMAIN BY MUNICIPALITIES FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. (pdf)

LCO 21. AN ACT CONCERNING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURES FOR MUNICIPAL REDEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. (pdf)

************

THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND
City wants back rent from Kelo residents
Expects homeowners who lost case to pay hundreds of thousands

Posted: August 20, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
� 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

In the adding insult to injury category, the city officials that triumphed over a group of Connecticut homeowners in a landmark Supreme Court property-rights case are expecting those residents to pay the local government rent dating back to the year 2000.

The June 23 Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London gave the town the approval to seize the residents' homes and transfer them to a private party for development of an office complex. In the highly controversial decision, the justices ruled 5-4 that the economic development resulting from the eminent domain action qualified as "public use" under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

The city now says that since it won the case, the homeowners actually have been living on city property since 2000 when it first began condemnation procedures against them, so they must pay back rent � to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

"It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation," wrote Jonathan O'Connell in the Fairfield County Weekly.

Not only is the city demanding rent, but the buyout offers on the table are based on the market rate as it was in 2000, before most of the growth in the current real-estate bubble.

The New London Development Corporation, the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, first addressed the rent issue in a June 2004 letter to residents, calling the alleged debt retroactive "use and occupancy" payments.

"We know your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free, or rent out that property and pocket the profits, if they ultimately lost the case," the agency said. It warned that "this problem will only get worse with the passage of time," and that the city was prepared to sue for the money if need be.

The Kelo case is named after Susette Kelo, who owns a single-family house in New London with her husband. Kelo was told she would owe around $57,000 in rent.

"I'd leave here broke," Kelo told the weekly. "I wouldn't have a home or any money to get one. I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge."

Matt Dery owns four houses on the building site, including the home his 87-year-old mother was born in and still lives in. Dery's past-due rent, according to the city, exceeds $300,000.

It remains to be seen if a suit will be filed against the residents.

"From a political standpoint, the city might be better off trying to reach some settlement with the homeowners," Jeremy Paul, an associate UConn law dean who teaches property law, told the paper.

Related stories:

**********

While Americans are losing their homes through Eminent Domain abuse, read a New York Times article about�.

2 Illegal Immigrants Win Arizona Ranch in Court

By ANDREW POLLACK, New York Times

Published: August 19, 2005

DOUGLAS, Ariz., Aug. 18 - Spent shells litter the ground at what is left of the firing range, and camouflage outfits still hang in a storeroom. Just a few months ago, this ranch was known as Camp Thunderbird, the headquarters of a paramilitary group that promised to use force to keep illegal immigrants from sneaking across the border with Mexico.

Now, in a turnabout, the 70-acre property about two miles from the border is being given to two immigrants whom the group caught trying to enter the United States illegally.� Article continues at this website�.� http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/national/19ranch.html

**********